Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/10 Ross Gardler
<ross.gardler(a)oucs.ox.ac.uk>uk>:
I'm concerned that there is confusing
messages about how decisions are made.
In one thread it has been stated that the community will decide (a
general comment).
In another thread it is stated that the board will decide (about CRB
checks specifically).
I think there needs to be some clarity on this issue. The community will
soon be asked to vote on an initial board. If this board is to have full
decision making power then that will affect the vote.
Legally speaking, the board has complete decision making power and
there is no way for the community to restrict that (before becoming
members, at least). The board ought to follow the wishes of the
community, but at the end of the day they are legally obliged to act
in the way they personally think is in the best interests of the
charity, so they must have the power to override the community
otherwise they can't do their jobs.
Yes, I realise that. I'm concerned about the mixed messages that's all.
What you appear to be saying is that the board undertakes to respect the
wishes of the community and will consult with the community in all
decisions. However, the board reserves the right to make decisions that
are not necessarily the same as the wishes of the community in
situations where the WM-UK will be better served.
Is that correct?
An example where such a situation may arise is in the area of CRB checks
where (ignoring legality for a moment) the board may decide CRB checks
are required even if a majority of the community feel they are not.
A second example may be in the acceptance of membership.
(please don't think I'm implying anything here, I'm merely trying to
ensur that clarity exists)
Anyway, most of the decisions we're making now are
about how to run
the election, so those decisions won't be relevant once the board is
elected.
The results of the election will appoint a body with the power to make
decisions on behalf of the community. This is a requirement of UK law
and therefore not negotiable.
As far as I can see, the community has no ability to remove that power
since there are no bye laws in place at the time of the election.
Again, let me stress, I'm not saying that anyone is going to abuse that
power, I'm merely saying they could. This concerns me as I know of a
number of communities who have imploded completely as there was no way
to remove a rogue element of the board.
It is much safer, IMHO, to put a mechanism in place *prior* to the
election for the removal of a rogue element of the board. One that has a
very public history is Mambo/Joomla.
Providing such safeguards could save a great deal of pain in the future
for a small amount of effort now (of course it is unlikely to be needed,
it's a bit like deciding how much insurance to pay for).
I'd suggest that something simple will do for the interim board, say 75%
of voting members and/or a majority of board members. Or perhaps there
is a model you can adopt from one of the other successful chapters.
Ross